Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kate McMillan

This page is an archive of the proposed deletion of the article below. Further comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or on a Votes for Undeletion nomination). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. Fernando Rizo T/C 22:33, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Kate McMillan

• Non-notable. Person in question appears to want it deleted, per message left on my talk page. Delete. Andre (talk) 01:55, September 1, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete I read the talk page message, it looks like some sort of blogging feud/rivalry has spilled onto Wikipedia. Delete as NN and/or attack page. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:21, September 1, 2005 (UTC)

MsMcMillan seeks noteriety with her blog... she does regular interviews for media outlets in Canada on the subject of blogging... she was recently quoted in at least 2 if not 3 mainstream daily publications in a contreversey surrounding Marc Emery

The real problem is Ms.McMillan does not like not having control over her own public relations.

She has made the comments that were attributed to her, re Angolans in Africa and Aboriginals, and their children needing to be "locked up" or put into residential schools

FWIW... I think racism, such as Ms.McMillan exhibits over and over again.. (see various discussions about her over at the Cannabis Culture Forum) needs to be documented and discussed, and people in Canada should be aware of what they are getting when they vote for a party of people who openly condone and support racists.

If there is anything factually incorrect with the entry about Ms.McMillan then she should be free to edit the entry like every other Wikipedian... and not just wipe out her contreversial statements when they cause her a problem, which they seem to be doing, as more media in the last week were alerted to her Angolan comments and various comments about Canada's indigenous people.

Lastly... what is Mike Brock and Ezra Levant doing with entries... when Ms.McMillan is not? Perhaps some of the progressive bloggers might be induced to comment on this. Somena 05:04, 1 September 2005 (UTC)

• Comment. According to the Truth Laid Bear ratings, the Small Dead Animals blog is at least semi-notable with 3930 visits a day and 113th in links so there is a case for it staying. However, the article needs to seriously cleaned up in terms of NPOV and wider significance needs to be shown. User Somena seems to have serious POV problems in relation to this article. Capitalistroadster 05:50, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Somena is most likely correct when she says that we are voting on this VfD because McMillan "does not like not having control over her own public relations". Alexa rank is negligible (>100,000), but McMillan seems to be notable -- "Ms. McMillan was called an "inspiring friend" by conservative MP Monte Solberg, the opposition finance critic. She is the paid administrator of "The Shotgun", the on-line blog of the hard-right-of-center magazine Western Standard." Other reasons for notability are discussed on starblind's talk page, it seems. Having just tried to broker a compromise between warring bloggers, I sympathise with those who will have to negotiate between the blog-warring factions here. Sdedeo 06:51, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, but less NPOV McMillan passes the notability test. She is on the radio alot (more than Mike Brock, another Canadian blogger who went through VfD and remained). She also seems to be quoted in the newspaper alot as a "blogging authority." Editors should also keep in mind the Systemic Bias that has been identified in Wikipedia against entries that are non-American. Bloggers generally are more notable and have a greater cultural role in Canada than elsewhere. For more info see Canadian blogosphere.--Simon.Pole 08:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Notable person in Canada DV8 2XL 12:18, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep- the Mike Brock comparison is apt. Ezra Levant however, is a syndicated columnist, and thus much more notable than either.--Scimitar ^parley 14:27, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Keep - This person seems to be Wiki-worthy. UniReb 21:08, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
• Delete - Just Google 'KKKate' and you'll see that Somena (Meaghan Walker-Williams, aka Edward T. Bear, aka numerous other sock puppets) is pursuing a personal vendetta against McMillan. Read the history of the page to see McMillans comments, which are substantially correct. Colby Cosh is a far better known Canadian blogger and not listed in Wikipedia.--Jtk3 22:02, 1 September 2005 (UTC)
  • this is Jtk3's first and only edit. User Account was created immediately prior to this edit. For a list of other Canadian Bloggers listed in Wikipedia, please see Category: Canadian bloggers.

• Comment I have actually been to this blog, which in and of itself practically makes this wikiworthy, given the minutely small number of blogs I have ever bothered to read. I am troubled, however, that the entry is currently being used to promote an anti-Tory political agenda - per Somena and her assertions - which is an outright violation. If its stands as is, with its baiting content (the Solberg quote is loaded, as is the controversy) - i.e. no one is willing to bother to rewerite it as part of this AfD process, then it should be Deleted until it is authored in a manner that conforms to NPOV, or else merged to the cdn blogger list. Dottore So 01:44, 2 September 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. McMillan seems quite convinced of her notability in this newspaper article: [1]. I'll happily rewrite the article out of sheer bloodymindedness if it survives. Sdedeo 02:06, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

(note on JTK3 commentator above, Mr.John T Kennedy and his wife Lynnette Warren's only contribution to Wikipedia prior to this entry has been to vandalize a page dealing with Somena. See here and here )

Why is it *anti-tory* to point out what this woman has said including links to the comments and screen captures to prove she said it. Monte Solberg doesn't have a problem with people knowing about his relationship/inspiring friendship with her... or that it is well known... he has on 3 separate occasions promoted her blog on his website, and also in an interview by Blogging Tories Blog Alliance owner Stephen Taylor which was podcast on the internet.

If the Tories are comfortable with somebody like McMillan in their ranks, it seems a little unreasonable for them say people drawing attention to their involvement, association and promotion of this woman is "unfair" or partisan.

I personally don't vote. I don't belong to any politcal party. I'm actually libertarian... and I could care less which political party is running the country... they are all crooks as far as I am concerned. But I do think Canadians should be able to see the kinds of views and positions of "tories" who openly advocate these sorts of things on-line and be made aware of what they are voting for, and what they can expect from these people if they should ever achieve power.

For instance... would it be "NPOV" to build an entry about former Canadian Alliance MP Jim Pankiw , who made several remarkable derogatory comments about Aboriginals among other things? What about to draw reference to Stephen Harper's infamous remarks about contreversial "Atlantic Canada" or the Firewall around Albert? Is it NPOV to have an entry about Svend Robinson's shoplifting? Would it be wrong to have an entry about David Ahenakew's anti-semetic remarks? Would it be NPOV to have a mention on Michelle Malkin's entry, about her defence of internment for Japanese?

No. It wouldn't and it isn't See all the entries above. These are remarkable events, and remarkable commentaries by various personalities who crave noteriety and drawing attention to themselves.

McMillan says on her own blogpage that the reason she chooses a "dead gopher" on her website graphic is because it's a reminder to people that she is not afraid of saying offensive things. In fact, that's a big part of why she blogs according to interviews she has given... she enjoys saying contreversial and un-politically correct things. Context is important in all this.

Yes... my entry on McMillan is biased. If somebody wants to present the information about her in a non-biased format... that's what Wikipedia does and is for i.e. several people add and subtract, delete and modify until the page is the most correct and neutral. But notice that's not what the subject Kate McMillan wants. She wants the facts about her to not be referrenced or linked to. She wants to have all control over what is being said about her. And if she can't have it that way... she demands that nobody say anything about her at all. Now considering McMillan's recent remarks on her blog about Marc Emery, and how she went out of her way to make sure that as many people as possible found out about contreversial statements by Mr.Emery, I find it remarkable that she would object to getting the same treatment, because of her own contreversial remarks.

Somena 02:40, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

A brief riposte. Some of your points cited as supporting examples I agree with, but then I think we are dealing with something that is different in both kind and specie. Ahenakew, for example, was elevated to the Order of Canada, and then expelled after his anti-semitic remarks. In an encyclopedic treatment of Ahenakew, therefore, that is important. Your other examples are equally disingenuous. Robinson was an elected MP (hence notable) and resigned due to the incident you mentioned. All the others are MPs, too, for that matter. Ms. McMillan is barely noteworthy at all. To single out her comments about race, etc... is, in my view, very tendentious since it implies a notability through controversy which does not exist. Also, a small point, but why should anyone be coming here for political commentary at all. Pour la politesse aux autres, you may wish to respond to any direct points on my talk page, instead of clogging up the AfD. Fwiw, I vote Bloc, so I am not being an apologist here. ;) Dottore So 03:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in an undeletion request). No further edits should be made to this page.